reports, attack mode. president trump lashes out against robert muell or twitter and with his personal lawyer rudy giuliani. >> you have every right to say, okay, you explain it, mueller. stand up and be a man. eyes in the skies. an undercover tsa program putting everyday americans under surveillance in airports and on board flights raising concerns about civil liberties and just who is watching you. >> this means they write douwn, are you talking on the phone? do you have a computer? are you reading something? are you looking in a weird direction? >> 99 days to go with midterm elections just around the corner. the president threatening a government shutdown over funding of that wall shaking up republican leaders who thought they had convinced him to hold off. >> i certainly don't like plaug shutdown politics. i don't think it would be helpful so let's try to avoid it.

good day, everyone. happy monday. i'm andrea mitchell in washington where president trump is leading a more aggressive line of attack against robert mueller using twitter to slam the special counsel by name and dismissing the investigation into the trump campaign as an illegal scam. while hinting at a conflict of interest with mueller over private business dealings. the president's personal attorney also raised that subject this morning. >> he's referring to a dispute which i imagine mueller -- i imagine he disclosed it to rosenstein when he appointed him because it would involve something that wasn't settled, even to this day. >> what is it? >> that's up to the president and mueller to describe. >> the deputy attorney general was asked directly about potential conflicts of interest during testimony before two house committees just last month. >> if there were any conflicts of interest brought to our attention, i would discuss with mr. mueller and then there could be review within the department if there were probably

allegation of a conflict of interest. and so i am not aware of any disqualifying conflict of interest. >> joining me, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker and two msnbc contributors, joyce vance and barbara mcquaid, both former u.s. attorneys. welcome all. first to you, kristen, what the heck are they talking about today? this is a much more aggressive attack from both the president and his lawyer. >> it was striking. we started to see this more aggressive attack roll out over the weekend when president trump directly attacked robert mueller calling him out by name. calling the investigation an illegal scam saying that he had all sorts of business conflicts with him as you just pointed out. rod rosenstein testified to the fact he saw no conflicts of interest and then you had rudy giuliani really trying to undercut michael cohen, the president's former personal attorney and personal fixer really. giuliani tried to argue that tape that was released by michael cohen in which you hear

cohen and the president talking about a payout may have been doctored in some way shape or form. and really calling the very credibility of cohen into question saying that he's a liar and a scoundrel and all sorts of things. i think what you are starting to see is the president, some of his allies getting very concerned about the prospect of michael cohen. as we've reported, being poised to tell robert mueller in his own words that he believes president trump had prior knowledge of that meeting between don junior and that kremlin-linked attorney. last week, if you look at the total, we tried to get questions to the president 13 different times about that topic and related topics. he ignored all shouted questions. finally today we're going to have a chance to ask him some of the questions. you can see the honor guard lined up to welcome the italian prime minister. the two will be holding a joint press conference later on today. we expect reporters from each country will get two questions

each so we have a long list of questions ready for the president. >> and also there was some confusion based on a couple things that rudy giuliani said on cnn this morning. which seem to suggest there may have been a premeeting before that infamous meeting in trump tower in june of 2016. >> and that would be a new development. that's one of the questions we'd like to ask the president to clarify that. but the bottom line is, this is the first time we're hearing about any second meeting, prior meeting to that don junior meeting. it's not clear what giuliani was talking about. we've asked for clarification. he's simply tweeted out there was no collusion. but again, rudy giuliani indicating there may have been some prior discussion at least before that trump tower meeting. why would that be significant? it would be significant because it raises the specter of that meeting. this is something don junior himself has sort of dismissed as

a nothing burger. if there was any type of prior discussion, that would indicate that's not the case. >> and joyce vance, first to you. what would be the significance if there were this kind of prior meeting or discussion after the fact with others in attendance besides michael cohen? would you assume that robert mueller would not have to rely exclusively on michael cohen as a witness given the attempts by giuliani and others to hurt his credibility? that there would be other corroborating evidence that they'd have access to? >> the investigators will try to find corroborating evidence if this new report from giuliani is correct. and that would be both folks who participated in the meetings and then documentary evidence. that may be texts or e-mails setting up that first meeting or following up on it, as well as support staff who might have helped put together the meeting

or observed it. i think if this is true, it's a very important development. it's always been hard to accept trump junior's characterization of this meeting as unimportant because of the timeline that it happened on and because of the participants. you have microsoft, the then campaign manager, along with trump jr., kushner and others meeting with russians. that didn't look like an unimportant meeting that you would runt after the fact which is what trump jr. said. if there were set-up meetings in advance, this will take on increasing significance as a key part of the narrative involving collusion between the campaign and the russians. >> and barbara mcquaid, the fact that the proximity of the then candidate, just one floor away from when that meeting took place, the fact he then went to a campaign lunch later that day with his son, the likelihood they never would have discussed that becomes even more implausible just because of the relationship that we know they

had. and then you've got the comments from the candidate addressing russia directly and the coincidence, if you will, of the timing of when the wikileaks started, all of that. that was laid out in the mueller indictment. >> prosecutors are fond of saying there's no such thing as coincidence. any time you have something like that coincide, prosecutors would dig deeper. a common tactic of prosecutors in putting together a case is to build a timeline to see where events intersect or what comes before or after. the fact this comes on the very same day does suggest that perhaps there is some connection between the statement between president trump and this meeting. i think, as joyce said, if there's a premeeting that takes on additional significance. then we're not talking about collusion. we're talking about conspiracy and agreement about what they wanted to get out of this meeting. it's a plan to commit a crime

and someone is -- it could be a conspiracy to accept anything of value in connection to a campaign which would be a violation of campaign finance laws. it could be a conspiracy to defraud the united states and the fair administration of its elections. so either of those is a crime, and i think a premeeting in addition to this meeting takes us one step closer to being able to prove a crime of conspiracy. >> and both -- to both you and barbara and joyce, i've been curious as to the timing issue. you're seeing a number of republicans, senator portman yesterday on "meet the press" and others, ron johnson and others, who say they support the probe but they're now saying enough already. let's get it over with. the president certainly, rudy giuliani. the pressure on mueller to deliver, is it important for him to deliver something before the campaign season really starts in earnest after labor day? let me go first to you, joyce.

yeah. >> there's a difference between political pressure and legal pressure. barb and i have both been involved in public corruption and white collar cases. they are slow moving. it's surprising to see mueller produce the volume of indictments he has in just this period of time since he was appointed. particularly because these are complex cases that involve foreign actors. from a legal point of view, anyone who is scoring mueller would give him an a-plus for the amount of progress he's made. as you point out, the political side of the calculus is a little bit different. and there is a lot of pressure both from the hill and a desire in the public to see things move more rapidly than typically prosecutors would be able to conclude this sort of complex sort of a case. and it's made even more important with the approaching election. doj has a longstanding policy of not involving themselves in indictments or even in filing subpoenas too close to an

election. things that could influence the outcome. so as we get closer to labor day, one suspects we'll see mueller pull back a little bit to avoid exerting any undue influence on the election. >> to you, barbara, certainly reiterated by the inspector general who criticized james comey for being too close to the election and influencing potentially influencing the clinton campaign. >> yes, the department of justice policy on this is very general. just directs prosecutors not to interfere with elections. not to do anything that could influence the outcome of an election. but it doesn't say exactly how to do that. sometimes people refer to a 60-day rule that you're supposed to have a quiet period for 60 days approaching an election. but that's not written down anywhere. it really is a case-by-case determination. but i do think that people will learn the less oven jim comey who, i think was trying to do the right thing and felt he had a duty to report back to congress. but many others would say violented the spirit of that rule of not doing anything

publicly so close to an election. so my guess is robert mueller acts with urgency in everything he does and will continue to push to get anything done he can well before the election. if he gets too close to election season, you'll see him quiet down a little bit. >> we've got the manafort trial starting tomorrow, kristen. we know from rudy giuliani and others close to the president they've been expert at distraction and changing the subject very quickly. well, you've got a major trial now. this is the first big trial, the jury selection supposed to start tomorrow, unless there's another delay. that's got to be something on their minds as well. >> it absolutely is because this is going to be the most in-depth look that we have gotten to date of the cards that robert mueller is holding as it relates to this investigation. as it relates to the president's former campaign chair. now, of course, the strategy to date has been to downplay the role that manafort has played during the campaign. but as we have reported

consistently, manafort was there during a critical time. he was, of course, there to help sort of move not only the president's campaign which was faltering at the time forward but to oversee the convention. so it's very difficult for them to downplay his role, but you hit the nail on the head. this is a president who is good at sort of mixing things up when it comes to the headlines, and one of the ways he's been doing that is to call for a government shutdown. one of the other headlines we're tracking. i wouldn't be surprised if we see more of that heading into tomorrow, andrea. >> that's a very good point. we'll watch to see as the italian prime minister arrives and we have the ceremony opening. then a photo opportunity in the oval office and an opportunity for the first time in a couple of days to try to get questions. it was a whole week in fact. ten attempts, as you've been pointing out. we'll track all of the arrivals and possible questions and possible answers at the white house in the coming minutes

right here on "andrea mitchell reports." stay with us. coming up next -- who is watching you? why you might be under surveillance without even knowing it by federal air marshals the next time you get to an airport and step on a plane. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel. i don't think about the ink card. i think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. i think about the details. fine, i obsess over the details. think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought your ink card. introducing chase ink business unlimited with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours.

your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home,

and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. welcome back. a secret tsa program called "operation quiet skies" is now

being reveal forward the first time. undercover federal air marshals following americans at the airport and on flights while passengers luckily have no idea they are under surveillance and have not committed any crimes. nbc's tom costello explains. >> reporter: internal tsa documents suggest it happens 40 to 50 times a day. armed, undercover air marshals tracking and surveilling everyday passengers through airports, even on board domestic flights all across the country. passengers who have no criminal history and are not on any terror watch list but have still raised red flags. with air marshals watching their every move, even sitting next to them on board. the boston globe's jenna winter broke the story. >> they write down, are you talking on the phone? do you have a computer? are you reading something? are you going to the bathroom? are you looking in a weird direction? do you change your cloecthes on the plane or at the airport? >> reporter: the information sent to tsa headquarters. the tsa says the primary purpose

of this program is to ensure passengers and flight crew are protected during air travel and it's not intended to surveil ordinary americans. passengers are selected for surveillance if their foreign travel and other factors raise concerns. including criminal records, curious financial transactions, e-mail or phone numbers that could be tied to terrorism. we recently talked to tsa chief david pikosky about the air marshals. >> we keep their presence covert because we don't want our adversaries to know they're on particular flights. >> reporter: but passengers aren't told if they're on the "quiet skies" list or what happens to the information collected about them. some federal air marshals complain the program is a waste of money. the unions saying the american public would be better served if these marshals were instead assigned to airport screening and check-in chaiareas so activ shooter events can be prevented. >> it should go without saying government agents shouldn't be monitoring travelers without a good reason for doing so.

>> nbc's tom costello joining us now. tom, is this profiling? how does it work, and how long has it been going on? >> tsa stresses this is not racial or ethnic profiling. simply looking at individuals who have had this travel history that may in and of itself raise a red flag but then coupled with other data points, other pieces of information warrant at least a closer look. the program itself has been around since 2010, but the federal air marshals have really kind of reoriented part of their daily assignment to start doing this. that started within the past year or so. i would make also this point. a lot of security pros say this is exactly what you would expect air marshals to do. if they are aware that somebody could be a potential risk, maybe they're not on a terror watchlist but you'd like to keep an eye on them, wouldn't it make sense to have a federal air marshal do exactly that? and the surveillance would last

for up to three months after they return from an overseas trip. >> you know, i've had some experience with this myself and some of my colleagues because we travel to places like iran and turkey and afghanistan for our assignments. and i have notice, and some my colleagues have noticed when they come back, they have extensive, quote, random checks and all sorts of other issues when they're going through tsa. just because of the countries listed on their travels. >> yeah, i've had the same experience. and that is standard protocol. based on where you've been. you may be selected for more enhanced screening. but that is a separate issue from having a federal air marshals also known as f.a.m.s, literally watch you for three months when you come back to make sure every time you appear in an airport or on a plane you aren't demonstrating some behaviors that could be a risk to the aircraft. >> tom costello. while you weren't noticing, perhaps, there was a small box showing live pictures from the white house where the prime minister of italy, the new prime

minister, was arriving for a meeting in the oval pauchs toff. the president came out to greet him. we'll be watching the oval office. tom costello, thank you from the washington bureau. turning now to the raging wildfires tragically roaring through northern california. they have destroyed hundreds of homes and taken at least six lives, including some small children. the massive carr fire incinerating entire neighborhoods and forcing thousands of residents to evacuate. some with absolutely no warning. miguel almaguer reporting on the latest conditions from redding, california. >> reporter: ripping into redding, the blaze almost the size of denver. the unstoppable force taking the life of a firefighter and a bulldozer operator working on the front lines. melody bledso wrapped a wet blanket around her great-grandchildren emily and james as fire tore into their home. their bodies discovered over the weekend. her husband was evacuating

neighbors. >> can't lose more than family and then you lose everything on top of that? >> reporter: some 40,000 have now been evacuated, driven out by the raging wall of flames. >> i have literally everything that i can think of that's valuable and shoved in my car as fast as possible. >> reporter: with some people still missing, 5,000 structures are threatened. >> and we don't know the damage and the toll in terms of human life yet. temperatures predicted to soar above 100 degrees in redding, california, over the next few days. authorities say conditions might not improve until next week. our thanks to miguel almaguer. we'll be right back. your mornings were made for better things than psoriatic arthritis. as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you.

xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts, and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common, and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

without talking to your rheumatologist it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin

we're now in the midterm election countdown. only 99 days to go until the midterms. president trump is escalating the stakes for his own party. now threatening to shut down the government over funding for that long-promised border wall and other critical immigration issues. and that was a big surprise to republican leaders. they were at the white house only last week. they thought they had reached a deal with the president to avoid a funding fight ahead of these pivotal elections. the president tweeting, though, i would be willing to shut down

government if the democrats do not give us the votes for border security which includes the wall. must get rid of lottery, catch & release, et cetera and go to system of immigration based on merit. we are need great people coming into our country. well, no mention of the dreamers. joining me, steve israel who served as chairman of the democratic congressional campaign chairman and linda chavez who served under president reagan and director of the becoming american initiative. welcome both. linda chavez, if you're a republican leader on capitol hill, you're trying to get past the midterms. a lot of headwinds but some good economic news to put on a bumper sticker. why would you now start the immigration? is this to fire up the base? >> he hopes that it will fire up the base. the problem is, it also fires up the democratic base. this is really amazing, andrea. this is the first time in years we've had a relatively normal budget process. the house has passed all but 12

appropriations bills. the senate has gotten ready to go with 9 out of the 12. and the president then says let's shut down the government. it just makes no sense. >> should democrats be worried this is a potent issue for him to be raising this close to the midterms? >> well, let me give you historic context. i was the chairman, as you said, of the democratic congressional campaign committee. october 2013 when house republicans shut down the government over the affordable care act. and i know linda remembers this well. and i will tell you, we were going into a really tough midterm election. barack obama had just been re-elected. i was basically cold calling democrats to run for congress in that rough environment. generic ballot in the doeld rums and republicans did something crazy. they shut down the government. what happened within days i went from cold calling candidates to not having enough time to return calls from potential candidates.

the generic ballot went from a virtual tie to nearly a double-digit preference for democrats. 80% of the american people blamed -- disapproved of the shutdown. 53% blamed republicans compared to 28% who blamed obama. and the midterm took a different complexion. it was horrible for government but a boost to democrats. now here's the fundamental difference. number one, back then the republicans did this, not in an election year. they know they can't shut down the government in an election year. now we're 99 days away and secondly, back then, they assumed you could apoportion blame to democrats and republicans. right now donald trump is a republican president. republican senate. republican house. even flirting with a shutdown of government why would you blame anyone but republicans? >> linda chavez, it does raise a point and newt gingrich discovered this back when he was speaker that talk of shutting down the government or even shutting down the government does not play well for the party

in power. >> no it doesn't. and the immigration issue, this is particularly strange. you'd think that we have this huge surge of people coming across the border. in fact, we're way down. we had about 300,000 people who came in during the last fiscal year. the june numbers are out. the people apprehended at the border are down over april and may. so the president's tactics, his tough are rhetoric, all of the new border agents we've had and the funding that exists now is working. so why mess smith something working. he's trying to fix something that's not broken and to the deriment of the republicans running for office. >> the president did say he's going to be available six, seven days a week getting closer to the election. 60 days out, he said, to go to those 25 districts in contention. so he's nationalizing the election as though you could

avoid nationalizing the election. it's the big question filling all the spaces, but how does that help republicans? it gets their base out. how does it help or hurt democrats to have him basically on the ticket? >> you have to look at the battlefield. there are about 78 competitive districts. about a dozen at most defended by democrats. all the rest are defended by republicans to the point that linda made before. if the trump strategy is to use immigration to turn out their base, that will work in some districts but not in the moderate republican districts that republicans need to hold on to this majority. it's not going to work in orange county, california. or in the suburbs of philadelphia. it's not going to work in minnesota. it's not going to work in new jersey. so when trump says he's going to go to these districts and use immigration to turn out the base, what he'll be doing is turning out a democratic base in

districts they don't want democrats to be voting in. and he'll be keeping moderate republicans at home. they may decide they'll not vote for a democrat but they're not going to vote for republicans. telling voters to stay home in a midterm election is a really bad strategy. >> talking about immigration right now when the dreamers have not been resolved and congress has taken no action, linda chavez, we have families separated. we have 650 or so families still separated, from the resolved. the judge had some very strict marching orders. so why is it in his benefit to talk about immigration at all? >> it's not. and, frankly, you know, the whole question of family separation is something that went very, very hard against this president. it's going to make people remember those children, those crying children, the sound of their voices. the children being ripped from their mother's arms. that's not going to help. steve is exactly right. it's moderate republicans who

are vulnerable this time around. they are the people who, frankly, would not vote for a shutdown. they're not going to vote the way the president wants on immigration. so he is basically trying to change the subject. we heard a lot about michael cohen last week. that's what this is about. >> and steve israel, a question about the democratic side and some vulnerabilities there. you've got such a divide among democrats. you see progressives running like stacey abrams in georgia and the fight that overturned joe crowley in the bronx with cortez. but at the same time you've got a lot of more conservatives like connor lam in western pennsylvania. they are divided by those that are calling on i.c.e. and others saying, not so fast. let's fix i.c.e.

are there some real vulnerabilities there with this divide among progressives and more conservative democrats? >> look. you know, there's a difference between a message that's going to work in brooklyn, new york, and a message that's going to make sense in a place like brooklyn, iowa. there is a brooklyn, iowa. it happens to be in one of the congressional districts that is very competitive. so you know what i think the democratic message should be? just win. just win. and win it locally. you cannot gold plate a national message and force feed it on voters in districts as diverse as a battlefield we have now. we have districts in kansas that are competitive. who would have ever believed that. we have districts that are republican-leaning districts that can be won by democrats who connect with those local voters and not some message that may make sense on the upper west side of new york city. if you want to win, you have to -- tip o'neil is right. all politics is local. you want to win, message

locally. >> that's a house strategy. what do you do in the senate? chuck schumer. a former colleague from new york. is it more important to pressure those three red state democrats who voted for gorsuch to, you know, oppose brett kavanaugh because that vote is coming before the midterms, or is, you know, is it more important to try to switch the senate or stop a young nominee for the supreme court who would be there for decades and decades? >> well, if you're chuck schumer you've probably done the math and the short-term math on this confirmation is pretty rough. i'm more interested in the long-term math. we are going to have checks and balances against donald trump? the best way is if you have a majority. you can't if you lose heitkamp or manchin or mccaskill, lose tester in montana. and so those candidates, those senators ought to be able to

message and resonate with voters based on locality and not based on imperatives coming from inside the beltway, in my view. >> steve israel, thanks so much forri your expeer tees. and having run the campaigns before. and linda chavez, a great colleague and alumna of the reagan white house as well. and let's get the inside scoop from political analyst robert costa, building on that. "washington post" political reporter, moderator of washington week on pbs, of course. jonathan -- i mean -- sorry. robert. going to bring in jonathan capehart in a moment. let's talk about the president and the questions that he apparently is not answering because there was a photo opportunity. we'll play that tape back very quickly from the oval office in less than a minute. he was with the new prime minister of italy. and it's been a week since we've heard him answering questions. >> robert?

>> oh, it is -- it has been a week since he's answered questions. sorry, i thought we were waiting for a tape to play right there. >> in a moment. >> got you. we're watching a president right now who has been unhappy with questions from the press about michael cohen, his longtime lawyer about the russia investigation. but there are questions he must answer in the coming weeks. most importantly with the mueller probe. will he sit down with mueller and his investigators? if not, would that lead to a subpoena? these are the summer questions hanging over this administration. and when it comes to congress, you have the midderms approaching fast. >> let me interrupt you for just a moment. you see the president and prime minister conte. >> giuseppe conte of italy. he's a man who is doing a fantastic job. i really want to thank you very much for being here. we've become friendly over the g7 meetings and some phone calls and i agree very much what

you're doing with respect to migration and illegal immigration and even legal immigration. italy has taken a very firm stance on the border. a stance that few countries have taken and you're doing the right thing in my opinion. and a lot of other countries in europe should be doing it also. some have taken that stance a long time ago and they're doing a lot better. i want to thank you for being with us. it's an honor. we have a lot to talk about having to do with trade. our military. you're ordering planes. lots of planes. the united states has a very large deficit, as usual, with italy. about $31 billion. i'm sure we'll straighten that out pretty quickly. but we find it a great honor to have you with us. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. it's a big honor for me, of course, and thank you for this -- >> apparently no questions and, therefore, no answers.

let's bring back msnbc political analyst robert costa, "washington post" national political reporter, moderator of "washington week" on pbs and jonathan capehart, nbc contributor. you were saying robert when i so rudely interrupt dwroud play the president's tape back. >> you could see the president pushing for the border wall. a connection to his remarks on foreign policy just now with the italian prime minister. you see him connecting with this nationalism, populism focus on immigration. it's not so bmuch about the economy and the tax bill. but it's really this visceral emphasis on immigration that is dri driving this presidency at this moment. >> we have the president sort of throwing a lot of things out, including the fact he spoke about shutting down the government which could be politically toxic for the midterms. we were just discussing that

with linda chavez and steve israel. what is going to be the message? is he going to try to make tariffs a positive, even though republican senators are saying it's a negative in the farm states? >> i wish i could say i have the exact answer for you, but i can't because the president says something today. i'm going to shut down the government if you don't give me the border wall. tomorrow, later in the negotiations, he could make a complete 180 and then try to spin the 180 as exactly what he wanted to do. so i don't know what the president's game plan is. the republicans control the house. they control the senate, the white house. some argue they will soon control the supreme court, and if the president of the united states can't get his own party to pass a budget that they have the majorities to pass, then that says less about the democrats and more about the republican party and president trump in particular. >> rudy giuliani was on cbs. this is another whole issue of,

is it a distraction? is it real? let me play giuliani talking today about michael cohen again, ramping it up. >> there are 12 others, maybe 11 or 12 others, out of the 183 in which the president is discussed at any length by cohen. mostly with reporters. these are tapes i want you to read. i want you to hear them. >> and my mistake. he was on cnn earlier and fox earlier today. but that was "face the nation" sunday with margaret brennan. so, robert, what was he talking about when he talks about these tapes? what are we going to hear or not hear? and how is he trying to muddy up michael cohen? >> having spoke to mayor giuliani in recent days you hear him emphasize these tapes in his view exonerate president trump or help president trump's case. but he's not offering any evidence about what is actually on these tapes beyond that it's michael cohen talking with

reporters. this really should be up to the american people, for reporters and others to decide whether these tapes do anything for president trump's argument right now in the ongoing mueller investigation or southern district investigation about cohen. >> and jonathan, michael cohen versus rudy giuliani and who are you going to believe and we had sam nunnberg on "meet the press" yesterday dodging and weaving around whether donald trump has ever lied to him. whose credibility is on the line here? all of the above, i guess. >> right. that's like the dilemma. the rn person on a cliff trying to decide whether to grab the berry or escape the mountain lion that's on the other side. both of these people have credibility problems. what we're seeing in terms of rudy giuliani going out there and saying lots of things, it reminds me of the tabloid wars in new york city where they don't seem to care about the court of law. all of this is in the court of

public opinion and the laugh time rudy giuliani told us what was on a tape and that it would exonerate the president, when we finally got to hear the tape with our own words where rudy said the president says something that puts him in the clear and that was when they were talking about the pay cash or by check or something like that when we all heard it with our own ears. it was pretty clear the president was the one who said pay cash. so i think listening to the clip, even the clip you just showed of mayor giuliani, it makes me wonder if he's trying to get out ahead of something so when it does come out we think that we're not hearing what we're hearing. >> and make it mordifficue diff for michael cohen is he is going to flip and make that deal to make that deal. robert costa, what are you hearing about the pressure on mueller to deliver quickly because it seems the white house and republicans are ramping up the pressure saying enough

already. let's deliver even though he's delivered a whole stack of indictments, plea deals, guilty pleas and indictments of a bunch of russians. >> there is mounting pressure. and the pressure could increase as congress finishes its conclusions on russia and interference. we saw the house had its report. the senate will try to wrap up its report last summer. and you see a real interest among some lawmakers, republicans and democrats, who say this should happen by early september, well before the midterm election so people have a chance to digest it so it's not in late october. some kind of october surprise. if you can't fig out the president's intent with the possible obstruction of justice, people are still going to be curious about where is the president legally vulnerable, if anywhere, on those questions of obstruction of justice, if not the russia interference aspect. >> and i want to switch gears for a minute and talk about the supreme court.

brett kavanaugh and senator grassley rejecting democratic demands that they use the elena kagan model and produce all of his writings from when he was a staffer in the white house, when she was a legal staffer. that's what they did when she was up for the court. they want to see what he wrote when he was in the george w. bush white house. not just his more recent opinions. that said, ruth bader ginsburg was quoted off broadway. we've confirmed the quote that she spoke out in new york following a production. a production of an off-broadway play. we see her sitting there being interviewed. and she said something about i'm now -- i'm now 85. my senior colleague justice john paul stevens, he stepped down when he was 90 so think i have about at least five more years. jonathan, rbg, five more years? we've seen the workouts. we've seen her work ethic, which is extraordinary.

>> right. >> she's twice a cancer survivor, but, obviously, someone who is determined to stay as long as she feels she can work effectively as associate justice of the supreme court. >> there are all those cheers you hear, it's coming from the democratic party and progressives who desperately want rbg to stay. one, because she is held in such high regard but, two, if she leaves, that would cement president trump's hold and conservatives' hold on the supreme court for generations far into the future. i always joke that i sometimes envision or hope that ruth -- justice ginsburg sleeps in bubble wrap, walks around in bubble wrap because i want nothing to happen to her. that's a sentiment a lot of people have. >> whether you love her or not, i recommend the documentary "rbg." it's an extraordinary evocation of what it took for this woman

to reach the court and stay, be as active and all the cases she won and argued and won before that court. 5 out of 6 victories before she was even a supreme court justice nominee. thanks, jonathan capehard. thanks robert costa. coming up next, the afghanistan gamble. america's longest war and how president trump's impatience with that war has led to a major policy switch toward the taliban. stay with us. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider

an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less out of your own pocket. that's nice. and these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. it feels good to have someone looking out for you. want to find out more? call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, with aarp medicare supplement plan options to fit your needs. and learn how this type of plan works together with a part d prescription drug plan. here's something else good to know. with a medicare supplement plan, you have freedom. freedom to go with any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you're not restricted to a network. ever. and if you need to visit a specialist, you'll have a choice there, too. your coverage goes with you, too, anywhere you travel in the country.

we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp. that's the icing on the cake... i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call.

for you could be just a quick call away. we really pride ourselves on making it easy for you >> tech: at safelite autoglass, to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

and turning now to afghanist afghanistan. the new york times has reporting the trump urges afghan troops to retreat. the taliban will remain vast control of vast areas of the country. the president's impatient of the 17 years old in afghanistan is causing diplomats to kick start peace talks and holding direct talks for the first time in taliban. joining me now, our local affair reporter, dan, thank you very much to be with us. welcome to amr, your first

visit, first of many. let's talk about the war and this significance direct talks with the taliban. >> this is truly a gamble. keep in mind that there had been contacts over the years but it is limited and they were not ambitious and now this time you have high level diplomats talking to taliban representatives and the taliban are now sending higher level representatives. we have been fighting this war for 17 years and there is never been anything close to a real peace negotiation. if it goes badly, there are many risks. there is a risk that the war is prolonged and risk that the president loses patience with the whole enterprise and decides to pull the plug on the u.s. haven. >> the fact is the taliban already controlled most of the rural areas. you got the cities that are

anomaly under control of the kabul regime. the government. there is a lot of territories of vast spaces. there are plenty of faces to hide and a lot of caves out there. >> that's right, the new york times story. it is an ed missiadmission by t there is not a way to push out the taliban entirely out of those rural areas. they are firmly entrenched. this has been a dilemma for years now and you' t see the strategies and tactics, they're trying to take the taliban out and you see no, it does not make sense, let's cons tcentrate on resources protecting the government and the town. there is a resignation that the war can't be won on the battlefield. you see the attempt trying to get the taliban on the table.

the problem is they're not on their heels. they're not in a weak position. they're in a relative position of strengths and that in a way makes this peace gamble very tricky. >> let me throw you a curve and ask you what's going on in pakistan. you got the likely election now of this populus leader. >> if there is going to be a peace deal in afghanistan, it is hard to imagine there would be one out pakistan being apart of the peace negotiations sporting it and accepting it and approving it. pakistan in the end give birth to the taliban. they are the named patrons of the taliban. for years the u.s. have begged and pleaded and urged islamabad

and pakistan has declined. u.s. officials say they are not helpful. what's interesting of this latest episode is pakistan have not sabotage this our have done anything undermine us. u.s. officials say they are not doing anything to help. pakistan is the key to all this. it is hard to imagine it is successf successful. the u.s. have to decide how much pressure they'll put on pakistan. they have not gone beyond that. that's another policy choice the white house faces in this. >> a lot in their plate and have been gone unnoticed. thank you so much for your reporting and the whole team. thank you for being with us today. >> we are getting new information concerning rudy giuliani. who knew? let's bring in our ken delany. please bring us up to date. he's talking again. >> rudy giuliani is on fox news

and shedding more light on why he said michael cohen's account was there is a prestrategy meeting for the june 2016. this was something we never heard before and none of the participants have said anything about it. michael cohen is saying there is such a meeting and we were wondering where rudy giuliani got that information. he's telling fox news that he got it from reporters. he's expecting to make the allegation that this is michael cohen's story. the bottom line is if in fact these people jeb bush near and paul manafort and don jr. did have a meeting to prepare this other meeting with the russians, it sort of suggestis that this meeting is less of a nothing burger that they are making it out to be. they are prepared for it and ready to have it. we'll see if michael cohen can corroborate his story.

if this can be the case certainly increase the significance of an significant meeting and this mysterious meeting and involved in a lot of testimonies. we do have that tape of rudy giuliani trying to plea a reporter story that he's not quite familiar with that he's trying to get ahead out of, perhaps? >> this is fox news. >> why do you feel it is necessary to get on the record of things that have not been asked yet. what's coming? >> well, when i thought it was going to be published, i want to get out in front of it. >> so, ken dilanian, we don't know the source or whether it is true or not true. this is another shiny object that keeps evolving and -- >> one thing is clear and yeah, it is very clear that rudy giuliani likes to see himself on television. there is no doubt about that.

he's throwing out these tidbits whether it is helping donald trump's legal strategy is kind of a mystery. but, we'll have to see where this goes in terms of michael cohen's story of this trump tower meeting. i know congressional investigators are interested of what story this is about alleged meeting. >> all eyes are going to be on the courtroom and we should point out this is one of the case and the other case would follow in the district court here in d.c. >> that's right, in one sense there is high drama here because this is the first test of robert mueller's work in the courtroom. this was donald trump's campaign chairman. there is a lot about this trial that's numbingly boring. it is a financial case of tax evasion and bank fraud. it is not going to shed any light of trump's campaign

colluded with russia. >> ken delanian, thank you so much. we'll all be watching the courtroom. we know there are 35 people lustlust listed. they'll be jury selection and that can take a while. this is manafort's week. the former campaign chairman who the president and his aids have tried to say is not a key player but were involved in the campaign at key moments and in one of the key witnesses. to be continued, that's all we have today for this edition of "andr "andrea mitchell reports." chris jansing is taking over right now.

>> hello, i am chris jansing here in new york on msnbc. does it matter? his credibility war with his former lawyer and fixer and of course his current lawyer and spin doctor says he's not sure if collusion is a crime. and the shut down of a single word and a single tweet. the president strikes fear into his own party. 99 days from the midterms. how bad could it be for republicans defending their seats if president trump decides well, let's shut down the government. plus, exploding the twitter verse. ruth bader ginsburg, how long she plans to stay on the high court? >> let's start with the twitter